Thank you for accepting my challenge, I look forward to the following debate... for clarification the rounds will go as followed as in LD style
1) Pro will present his case
2) Con will present his case
3) Pro will have their first rebuttal
4) Con will give their first rebuttal
5) Finally Pro will give their final rebuttal in which they will give a quick overview of their case and reasons why they feel they should win
Please no new arguments in the Pro final rebuttal as it would be unfair considering I wouldn't be able to attack. I look forward to your debate and I wish you luck.
the Pro my now present their case

"The truest help we can render an afflicted man is not to take his burden from him, but to call out his best energy, that he may be able to bear the burden."
-- Phillips Brooks

It is because the happiness of an individual may only be reached by that individual, and because self-service trumps mindless sacrifice, that I stand in firm negation of the resolution stated

Resolved: People have a moral obligation to assist people in need

To provide some clarity for us all in this debate I give the following definitions

From Black Laws Dictionary 8th edition

Obligation- A legal or moral duty to do or not to do something

From Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary

Assist- to help

The highest value in today's debate is assistance because this case is about whether assisting people in need is an obligation.

I look at this value through the value criterion of need for one man's "need" is any other man's want.

Contention 1: The obligation because society says so is logically flawed
Craig Biddle, "Altruism: The Morality of Logical Fallacies," The Objective Standard, May 22, 2006

"You should be a vegetarian because Society says so." That is not a reason to be a vegetarian. It is an appeal to the masses. Matters of truth and morality are not determined by what society or a group of people says. American society used to say that slavery should be legal; some societies still do. That did not and does not make it so.

This shows that just because your society says something is right that doesn't make it so and history has shown us this with human sacrifice, slavery, and marijuana. What is right and what is wrong should be the individuals choice not societies chose

Altruism is the morality of "unchosen" obligations—obligations you must honor regardless of your values, desires, and interests. This fact points to why altruism calls for self-sacrifice. British philosopher John Stuart Mill explains: It is a part of the notion of duty in every one of its forms that a person may rightfully be compelled to fulfill it. Duty is a thing, which may be exacted from a person, as one exacts a debt. Unless we think that it may be exacted from him, we do not call it his duty… There are other things, on the contrary, which we wish that people should do, which we like or admire them for doing, perhaps dislike or despise them for not doing, but yet admit that they are not bound to do it.

This shows that while yes it is good to care for others it is not an obligation by any standards. An obligation ask for you to do something regardless of your own values or desires and therefore if we have a moral obligation to help anyone in need then we would have to help thieves because they need help robbing us, murderers because the need help killing our friends and any other criminal that walks the streets. Though no my opponent never said this it's true that it fallows the same lines of helping people in "need".

Contention 3: Modern life will prevent altruism from being fully accepted
George Reisman, Capitalism: A treatise on economics, 1990

The fundamental philosophical issue that is present here is the conflict between altruism and egoism. Altruism demands that we regard the needs of others as though they were our own. We value our last scoop of ice cream of bar of chocolate above their first bowl of rice. Rice we could buy for them with the price of the ice cream or chocolate, if we chose. According to altruism, such a state of affairs is a moral obligation, and we deserve to feel profoundly guilty for not doing so. Many of us, no doubt, do feel guilty for a while when a suffering group is called before us; but our guilt rarely lasts so long or goes so deep that we are led to give up very much for the sake of such groups. There is good reason for this. The basic fact is that we are separate, independent organisms, and our survival, well-being, and enjoyment require that each of us devote his abilities to providing for himself.

So this just simply shows that though we might feel bad for people in need it is not a moral obligation to assist them, because it is human instinct to fend for ourselves before others.

I'm sorry for this debate round the pro seems to busy to debate me. I understand this and do look forward to having a debate with them in the future. since nothing has been posted I have nothing to argue.
vote con.